(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
If you want a really basic paradigm to intellectually structure the modern world, it's nationalism versus internationalism and the distinction between three basic ideological umbrellas. Liberal capitalism is an internationalist ideology intended to unite the global bourgeoisie to maintain their currently-existing economic and social dominance. Capital moves across borders seeking the greatest profits and destroying challengers to the liberal internationalist paradigm, ensuring that the entire world is one big market for the global capitalist to extract the most wealth possible. The basic premise of this ideology is that an American billionaire has more in common with a Japanese billionaire than they have with an American worker. Fascism, as it has existed historically, is a nationalist ideology intended to unite the classes of a given nation to maintain the economic and social dominance of a national bourgeoisie. It clashes with internationalist liberalism because it proposes that an American billionaire has more in common with an American worker than with a Japanese billionaire, but it doesn't clash with capitalism itself because it preserves the existing capitalist structures of the national economy by telling the national proletariat that their true interests lie in the success of the nation (often narrowly defined to allow for easy gains by disenfranchising the Other to reward the national in-group) and therefore that the success of the national bourgeoisie is their own success. For a member of the national bourgeoisie, when liberal capitalism fails fascism is the fallback because it allows the bourgeoisie to preserve their position and their wealth. Sometimes that means operating in a slightly diminished national rather than international context, but fascism shares capitalism's drive to expand and capture more resources and so tends to allow for its national bourgeoisie to pursue global profits, by force if necessary, because it sees that as part of the nation's success. National unity doesn't threaten the position of the national bourgeoisie, instead it solidifies it by neutering the localized threat of class conflict. And, in fact, it can mean expanding that position if, for instance, Germany conquers France and gives the German bourgeoisie what the French bourgeoisie used to possess or Pinochet crushes the left and ensures the Chilean bourgeoisie can extract greater profits from their domestic market. Fascism also does not have to directly clash with global capitalism because it shares a common enemy with liberalism, the third basic ideology: Socialism is an internationalist ideology intended to unite the global proletariat to overcome the economic and social dominance of the global bourgeoisie. The basic premise is that an American worker has more in common with a Japanese worker than with an American billionaire. This clashes with both liberalism and fascism because it proposes overthrowing the bourgeoisie, whether national or international, and so it becomes a common enemy to both, which is a large part of why fascism and liberalism can get along: each thinks they can coopt or cooperate with the other to destroy their greater enemy. The internationalist element of socialism is also really important to bear in mind as a critique for those on the left who are okay with preserving unequal global capitalism in exchange for building some degree of socialism at home. If your domestic socialism is built on the continued exploitation of the global proletariat, it may not be worth the paper it's printed on. If you bear this (admittedly reductive) paradigm in mind when thinking about things like social credit, you can start to see the outlines of it more clearly. Writers critiquing liberal capitalism outside a socialist framework are often able to perceptively spot its flaws but fall down when required to propose solutions because they lack the vocabulary to articulate a meaningful alternative. Sometimes they propose solutions that fail to challenge the basic internationalist framework of liberal capitalism (for example, social democrats who want to blunt capitalism's sharp edges at home while maintaining its global domination of the proletariat abroad); sometimes they flirt with fascism by attributing liberal capitalism's internationalism to an Other (usually the Jews) who lack a nation, rather than to the global nature of capitalism itself, and so claim that returning to a more national form of capitalism would solve the problems. From what little I've read of social credit theory, this is usually where its proponents land: they criticize the liberal international order but conclude by saying that we need to return to a more redistributive national or local order instead, because we have more in common with our neighbours than with workers halfway around the world, which is at best naive and at worst pushing the reader towards fascism. Generally speaking, any critique of global capitalism whose solution is not global in nature cannot actually challenge the system, and can imply something even worse.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
been reading Vol 3 of capital and finding it much more constructive than 2. Feels much more comprehensive and clear-minded than the previous volume, marx returns to the structure of vol 1 where an economic theory is introduced, explained with hypothetical comparisons, he jousts a bit with vulgar economists and then highlights the validity of the viewpoint by quoting from surveys of British factories etc. It also seems like a very natural development of the previous 2 volumes, only a dozen or so chapters in but you see the framework for national economies, the tendencies towards monopolization and imperialism that would bring about the international conflicts of the 20th century and than practicing communists would take up after marx's era. Its grander in scope than 1 and probably less immediately applicable in my own day-to-day context but a very useful tool so far. I've never been able to wrap my head around Credit really, so looking forward to that section
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
i haven’t read volume 3 at all but doesn’t volume 3 say near the beginning that this is when everything finally comes back to the real world as it is rather than abstractions used in volumes 1 and 2? like his idea was to start with the abstract and build to the concrete
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If you want a really basic paradigm to intellectually structure the modern world, it's nationalism versus internationalism and the distinction between three basic ideological umbrellas. That was awesome, thank you. There's so much I like about Social Credit, I think just the basic pitch has an appeal to most people, it's not a poisoned term like socialism or Marxism, it was written to appeal to farmers for Christ's sake. The fact that what is now the most reactionary part of Canada was the first to be all for it, again I think that's a powerful potential. Obviously what's "everyday plain speech" has changed since then, so the emphasis on farming and laughably small potatoes debts would need to be brushed up, but in terms of "regular people deserve a fairer world than this, and we can make that happen." I think we need that fire, and identifying regular problems in people's lives in plain speech, and solutions that seem fair and intuitive. But, then as you said, Social Credit itself is not workable, even Social Credit in One Country would fail. So I suppose, is there a way to preserve the spirt of it with more coherent theory? Also, could it provide a more popular alternative to Social Democracy in a slow move to Socialism or would it run into the cultural barriers that have been erected since 1945, 1991? Last point, yes I'd be wary of touching it as written because as we saw with MAGA and how people with no class consciousness reacted to Rust Belt immiseration or the Great Recession, without a firm understanding it quickly becomes more of a hindrance than a help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
but what if we got rid of money and replaced it with another, friendlier technocrat kind of money
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
The MMT and UBI people don’t seem to realize that, at least culturally, they’re as associated with bourgeois liberal technocracy as actual liberals and won’t find a ground swell of popular support. It would basically preserve class structures but with a stipend in the hopes that the now entirely lumpanized workers permanently accept their new station in life, without even the mirage of American Dream class mobility. Rust Belt is not going to love Silicon Valley weirdos telling them that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
americans are fat, love burgers, and have no culture let alone politics. not much else to it
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If you want a really basic paradigm to intellectually structure the modern world, it's nationalism versus internationalism and the distinction between three basic ideological umbrellas. i appreciate this take
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If you want a really basic paradigm to intellectually structure the modern world, it's nationalism versus internationalism and the distinction between three basic ideological umbrellas. how does this square with i.e. Cuba, Vietnam, or Venezuela? it seems to be very difficult to maintain autonomy on the world stage without some form of nationalistic project
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:americans are fat, love burgers, and have no culture let alone politics. not much else to it am american, can confirm this accurately describes me
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If you want a really basic paradigm to intellectually structure ... Always knew that mod was a trot. (I really appreciate your posts)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Catgirl Al Capone posted:how does this square with i.e. Cuba, Vietnam, or Venezuela? it seems to be very difficult to maintain autonomy on the world stage without some form of nationalistic project well, on the one hand I freely admit that the basic three-ideology structure is quite reductive, and so you can always point out where this or that political movement bucks a trend. It's a basic schema designed to be expanded on rather than the last word on anything. That said, my understanding is that the kind of nationalist projects pursued in Cuba or Vietnam always retained important elements of internationalism, i.e., aligning with the global cause of socialism and the idea of building workers' states but adapting what that means on a local level to a particular state's needs. I'm less familiar with contemporary Venezuela's attitude towards internationalism, but Cuba for instance has historically been extremely dedicated to internationalist causes, like sending doctors around the world or dispatching the Cuban army to help Angola resist South African invasions or trying to export revolution within Latin America during the Cold War. Socialism being an internationalist ideology doesn't mean that nations with socialist governments dissolve their own borders or get rid of their national anthems or whatever. two-time fee posted:Always knew that mod was a trot. lol, but that's actually a pretty funny critique because while Socialism in One Country was essentially a practical reaction to the real-world failure of international revolution immediately after WWI, even at its most insular the USSR's stated ideology remained internationalist. The eventual solution proposed by the Soviet critique of global capitalism was global socialism, the Soviet leadership just took a very long-term approach to that goal, to the point that Trotsky drove himself crazy by concluding that their short-term compromises meant they weren't socialist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
A national protectionist syndicalism is an interesting idea in theory but it would have to be able to survive without trade as international capital wouldn't tolerate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:A national protectionist syndicalism is an interesting idea in theory but it would have to be able to survive without trade as international capital wouldn't tolerate it. capital will tolerate anything if its profitable
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:national syndicalism how about no
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
The "international bourgeoisie" only united because after 1945 they faced actually existing socialist movements taking power across the world while the former core of the capitalist order was devastated by war. The US made the other imperialist powers subservient to them. The international bourgeoisie is the Western bourgeoisie, it's the imperialist bourgeoisie. Other national bourgeoisies independent of this old unipolar order are consolidating in the shadow of a rising China, but they are much weaker and could easily be swayed (back?) to being compradors if China collapses. China of course is a socialist state, and there are a handful of other dictatorships of the proletariat or socialist state projects* existing. Capitalism developed into imperialism because the development of monopolies necessitated control over ever greater areas of the world to maintain profits. Fascism emerges when capitalists perceive a challenge from socialist forces and move to crush it. It's all part of an international system, and the lines between liberal capitalism and fascism aren't always very clear. The UK, while having colonized half the world, initially backed Mussolini to prevent a socialist Italy. Apartheid in the US south inspired fascists in Europe. Nazi assassins went on to work for NATO. The ruling class of fascist Chile and Spain reintroduced bourgeois democracy when conditions changed. Dividing all of politics into nationalist/internationalist is idealism. It's the working class against the imperialist bourgeoisie. Even in developed countries, the spoils of imperialist plunder are running thin. A multi-polar world or new cold war are not good for their own sake, but they do constrain the actions of the Western bourgeoisie. They can't just push a "structural readjustment plan" on a developing country to suck the wealth away like the 1990s. Even in the 1990s the screws were turning on the working class in the imperialist countries. The money or will isn't there to give every Westerner a house or recreate a robust welfare state again, while at the same time maintaining private profits. We are in a time where we don't have to argue intellectually that workers in the global north should care about even more impoverished workers elsewhere. Prices are rising for everyone because of an imperialist proxy war. Climate change threatens us all. The same imperialists are exploiting us all, or attempting to destroy our countries so they have an opportunity to do so. Certainly those issues are more acute in specific places, but they are common issues. *Idk how to define Venezuela.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:capital will tolerate anything if its profitable well it probably wouldn't be profitable since production without exploitation is by definition less profitable
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
my dad posted:how about no don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the NaSy party
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
every time some idiot thinks about selling communism to america they always end up grabbing onto "but what about national socialism?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:capital will tolerate anything if its profitable US capitalists were so high on the prospect of super profits they decided that doing technology sharing with China was a fine idea Extremely funny own goal
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:every time some idiot thinks about selling communism to america they always end up grabbing onto "but what about national socialism?" Social Credit did a lot in Canada, I wouldn't characterize it as National Socialism and Douglas had a lot of say about that Hitler fellow. Unfortunately he sort of conflated him and Stalin. C.H Douglas, the Big Idea posted:You do not say, "This is astounding. No one ever did anything like this before. I can only assume that he wants to catch the 9:15 train to his office." Which is about the level of intelligence required to accept the theory that if it hadn't been for Hitler, the world would be an example of Great Men serving Noble Ends. Which is correct, and I agree with. The problem is that even then he veers into what I'll call odd directions quote:I have said many times, and take pleasure in repeating, that the Germans are, and have been for generations, a godsend to warmakers, and a pest to Europe. The opinions of Lord Vansittart ad hoc, convey to me the impression of being the pronouncements of a competent, trained and experienced expert, and while he has expressly repudiated a "plan" for dealing with Germany and the Germans, I imagine that he could formulate one, and that it would be effective for some time to come – when we are in a position to put it into practice, as we were in 1918, and didn't. quote:I am going to suggest, and I believe that it is quite easy to prove, that Britain was the only great power which wanted peace and the only factor which prevented Britain from remaining at peace, and still further, maintaining peace in Europe, was the domination of the Government by international Finance and its tools, notably the "Labour" or Socialist Party. quote:I do not think that it is a coincidence that both in Socialistic Germany and Socialistic Russia there were, and are, two features in common. One is steady and continuous preparation for war. And the other is scorn of Christianity, two at any rate of whose principles are that individuals are more important than institutions, and that the end never justifies the means. quote:Although the fact is a little obscured at the moment, the human individual is the highest manifestation of divine attributes with which we are in day-to-day contact. What differentiates him from the lower orders, when he is different, is his initiative – the fact that he manoeuvres under his own steam. I am confident that there is an organised attempt to drive him down the scale of existence, so that he becomes primarily a number on a card index, by taking away as far as possible any recognisable initiative, his potentially divine attribute. The present war, and the obliteration of nationalities, the talk of Federal Unions and the United States of Europe, a purely Masonic conception, are all directed to that end. That is to say, war provides the opportunity, perhaps the necessity, for conditions of existence in which the individual is wholly at the mercy of institutions, and those institutions are ultimately controlled by an international junta. It's like I get where he's coming from, the sentiments aren't bad I don't think, but it's like causes and effect are off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:posting i was talking to the "national syndicalism" guy. the friendly money post was for you
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
yeah so I want to clarify I am not a proponent of any kind of nationalist socialism  Though I am interested how things like intra-national institutionalized unionism, such as in Belgium, fit into a framework of international socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I am interested . . . in . . .national socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:US capitalists were so high on the prospect of super profits they decided that doing technology sharing with China was a fine idea they were also high on the end of history and were utterly convinced that any day now, economic liberalization will inevitably lead to political liberalization because in all our big brain models it's literally impossible to do one without the other, also by the way please don't look at what happened to Russia since 1991 that's irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:they were also high on the end of history and were utterly convinced that any day now, economic liberalization will inevitably lead to political liberalization because in all our big brain models it's literally impossible to do one without the other, also by the way please don't look at what happened to Russia since 1991 that's irrelevant I mentioned it in the Ukraine thread but I had a seminar on "Democratization and Democratic Consolidation in Central and Eastern Europe" for PD, and while it was before I knew any economics, it didn't make sense to me that, given how everything there getting worse, and the fact that it seemed like they had an uneven deal within the EU, these vague concepts of democracy were going to make things better, let alone freer. It leaned very hard on Arendt and Totalitarianism / Authoritarianism to imo create woo woo metrics to say things in Hungary and Romania were in any way better, since even surveys showed people preferred the Socialist governments. I don't know if I'm just too stupid to be a lib or something because I'm married to an economist with an advanced education in International Relations and her textbooks honestly seem like gibberish word count padding. It's not that I don't understand the words and ideas (I don't think), it's that reading these books, I'm not sure what they're even supposed to be. e: actually, if I can give an example of a moment, when I graduated staff college I was gifted a "military history" book, writing from the perspective of "liberty" and seeing how everything in the book was bullshit, you know from a military history or basic military standpoint (Robert E Lee was an example of a General officer who embodied the spirit of liberty in his command style), that got me to realize that whatever "liberty" means, it's kind of bullshit. I don't know if that example will track for most people, but imagine a book being given to you on a subject you know pretty well, and how completely wrong it is gets you to question the ideology behind it. "In 490 BC the Athenian hoplite militia crashed into a horde of Persian conscripts as they disembarked from their ships onto the beaches of Marathon. Beginning the rivalry between the eastern and western worlds; the war between the Greeks city states and the Persian Empire was an existential struggle for the life of liberty. That struggle continues to this day. Conquest, oppression, liberation, and redemption; humanity at its worst, and finest. Every generation needs its heroes. From Xenophon to Brutus, from Wallace to Washington, from Wellesley to Sharon, the greatest soldiers in history are brought back to life. With in-depth analysis of their lives, the battles and wars in which they fought, Liberty's Lieutenants takes the reader from the beaches of Marathon to the Shenandoah Valley, and the deserts of Sinai, answering the question of why we live in a free world" Okay 1) recent scholarship on the "free" hoplites militias is that they were trash, refused to even drill, were stubborn and obstinate, and almost immediately there was a turn by the city states to mercenaries that were so much more effective that Greek commentators were in awe of them - because they did things like follow basic orders, move in formation, show up to practice. 2) Barely worth posting here that the Greek world was not "free" in a meaningful sense. 3) Brutus was an aristocratic shithead, and famously so was the Iron Duke, who fought reform tooth and nail. loving Shenandoah Valley and the Sinai, give me a loving break. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 21:10 on Jan 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
e-dt posted:I've dabbled a bit in psychoanalysis (Freud's introductory lectures, etc), does anyone here have any recommendations (while we're on the subject) for books about a Marxist-psychoanalytic synthesis? Catching up on the thread and wanted to respond to this. Contemporary relational psychoanalysis (just talking about clinical analysis here, academic psychoanalysis is kind of its own thing) has moved pretty far away from the Freudian and Lacanian discourse people generally associate with the field and has been incorporating Marxist and poststructuralist critique since at least the 1980s (Erich Fromm was a Frankfurt school guy and was integrating critical theory and psychoanalysis back in the 1940s). There are a ton of papers that come to mind but not necessarily collected into books. There's also a lot of libs in the field so it can be a mixed bag. Towards a Social Psychoanalysis: Culture, Character, and Normative Unconscious Processes by Lynne Layton might be a starting point for where the field is, though it isn't exactly a radical text. Mechafunkzilla has issued a correction as of 21:40 on Jan 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Catching up on the thread and wanted to respond to this. Contemporary relational psychoanalysis (just talking about clinical analysis here, academic psychoanalysis is kind of its own thing) has moved pretty far away from the Freudian and Lacanian discourse people generally associate with the field and has been incorporating Marxist and poststructuralist critique since at least the 1980s (Erich Fromm was a Frankfurt school guy and was integrating critical theory and psychoanalysis back in the 1940s). Maybe it is a localized thing? In Latin America at least (and Eastern Europe too if I got it right), Marxist "integration" with psychoanalysis picked up pace along Lacanian conceptualization, because Lacan's return to the fundamentals of psychoanalysis also meant - among other things - a return to the dialectic core of the practice. This approach of revisiting the core with a new approach meant a much richer development on structural factors, if I learned that right: poo poo like Lacan's "man's desire is the desire of the Other" could be far better expanded with Marxism coming along, which elaborates on the how and why of desire as a social, structural construct. For example, fetishism of commodities works brilliantly together with the Lacanian clinical subject in terms of working-through with desire. And it tracks: Lacan came up with jouissance taking surplus value straight from Marx and imagining it in terms of psyche. fwiw, any good lefty psychoterapist I've met around here has at least some decent chops on Lacanian analysis. The funny thing though is that they are not followers of his clinical style; his stuff as a groundwork for a better practice seems to be really good though, at least it's the impression that I have
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:Maybe it is a localized thing? In Latin America at least (and Eastern Europe too if I got it right), Marxist "integration" with psychoanalysis picked up pace along Lacanian conceptualization, because Lacan's return to the fundamentals of psychoanalysis also meant - among other things - a return to the dialectic core of the practice. This approach of revisiting the core with a new approach meant a much richer development on structural factors, if I learned that right: poo poo like Lacan's "man's desire is the desire of the Other" could be far better expanded with Marxism coming along, which elaborates on the how and why of desire as a social, structural construct. It's definitely localized. Lacan is still ultimately a drive theory, which (since the relational turn in the 80s) American psychoanalysts largely moved away from in favor of British object relations, interpersonal, Kleinian, and self-psychology, all kind of converging around the concept of intersubjectivity. Neo-Freudian and Lacanian metapsychology continued to be popular in places like France, Italy, and Argentina. A lot of the "why" has to do with immigration, who landed where, what language people were writing in, and how things shook out as people fought and split off from one another, resulting in the diaspora differently-oriented training institutes. Contemporary clinical psychoanalysis is also generally much more concerned now with how the social affects the individual, how the individual is constituted by the social, and how that plays out in the therapeutic relationship rather than asserting a positivist model of individual psychology to explicate social dynamics. Here in New York, Laplanche has gotten a lot of traction recently, but Lacan is incredibly marginal. Probably in no small part because his ideas about therapeutic action and technique are a huge turn-off, and have not survived the crucible of actually working with patients. Everyone also gets along much better than they used to, so you have Lacanian/Neo-Freudian and relational/intersubjective analysts writing about similar ideas, just using different language to say it while still understanding one another. Mechafunkzilla has issued a correction as of 00:52 on Jan 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
ive never been able to get my head around psychoanalysis, some survey level 101 stuff would be helpful
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:ive never been able to get my head around psychoanalysis, some survey level 101 stuff would be helpful It's a fancy word for psychodynamic psychotherapy with an analytically-trained therapist and also an umbrella term for models of psychic development and organization that are intellectual descendants of Freud (even if they are completely distinct from his theories). Stephen Mitchell's book Freud and Beyond: A History of Modern Psychoanalytic Thought is a good 101-level resource for learning what it's all about, at least up to the 1990's. Mechafunkzilla has issued a correction as of 02:40 on Jan 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Stephen Mitchell's book Freud and Beyond: A History of Modern Psychoanalytic Thought is a good 101-level resource for learning what it's all about, at least up to the 1990's. he’ll yeah 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
When I first came across C.H. Douglas, I remember his A+B theorem struck me as the most interesting thing he forwarded. And then later I realized Marx had already basically laid out that tendency in Vol 2 of Capital, in his critique of Smith's theory of income -- i.e., that there's a growing portion of Department-I value that exists as pure self-expanding capital (reinvested as constant capital between firms that produce the means of production) that never resolves into income.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/edmarcarse1/status/1612596652002394114 lmao @ trotsky
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
Mao having a sensible chuckle at Stalin being a drama queen
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Engels is like “holy poo poo Stalin look out”
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
lenin obviously hard at work writing another article about how much kautsky sucks
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:lenin obviously hard at work writing another article about how much kautsky sucks Doing God's work that man
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/VersoBooks/status/1613563039021948931
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
The Grundrisse was like a rough draft of what Marx would develop into Capital, right? I've never read it, but after reading all of Capital (except Theories of Surplus Value, gently caress that) I dunno if it'd be worthwhile outside of a comparative study between Grundrisse and Capital.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 18:15
|
|
